Dracula...for governor?

[bhsup]

Yeah, they actually voted for Mondale in 1984!

 

[Perfection]

While he would probably have a better chance if he ran for mayor of Circle Pines never over-estimate the electorate of Minnesota.

Why Circle Pines?

 

[Perfection]

Yeah, they actually voted for Mondale in 1984!

Well, he was our senator for a good 12 years...

 

[bhsup]

Hehe. That was really in jest more than anything. Nothing against Mondale, but if you look at the electoral map for 1984, Minnesota really stands out.

EDIT: Map added for reference.

 

[Perfection]

Hehe. That was really in jest more than anything. Nothing against Mondale, but if you look at the electoral map for 1984, Minnesota really stands out.

Yeah, we have the longest currently running streak of going to the democrats in presidential elections.

Mondale actually ran for senator in 2002 following the Death of Paul Welstone, but he lost to Norm Coleman.

 

[amadeus]

Mondull won just because he was from Minnesota; we wanted the potential pork projects.

 

[amadeus]

By the way, this isn't Princeton's (my home town) first mark of infamy.

Casey Ramirez was a millionaire who lived in town. He was known for being an eccentric, to say the least. He bought the mayor's house, planted palm trees in front of city hall, paid for an ice arena in grocery bags filled with cash, bought squad cars and Apple computers for the police department, built the local airport, and even had a street renamed in his honor.

Spoiler :

He was convicted in 1984 for smuggling cocaine into the United States and federal income tax evasion.

 

[Perfection]

I remember my parents telling me about that one.

Recently in Oak Grove (my home town), our city council used emminant domain (basicly says that a city can take your land for public good) to build a high-rise senior center in palce of a restaurant. The restuarant was recently purchased, and the owner sunk in $100,000 in repairs which was never compensated for by the city. Then it suddenly turns out that the senior center really wasn't a senior center, but actually a subsidized housing facility (Who knew?). Now, Oak Grove folk like Oak Grove because it's not covered in tract homes and apartment buildings, that's why all lots must be 2.5 acres or larger. Suddenly there's a project being constructed and everyone gets majorly POed. In the end the entire city council was booted out of office by the voters and the project got torched.

 

[bhsup]

Recently in Oak Grove (my home town), our city council used emminant domain (basicly says that a city can take your land for public good) to build a high-rise senior center in palce of a restaurant.

My God, I really hope that gets straightened out. It's supposed to be public USE, period. Roads, courthouse maybe, etc. Worst Supreme Court decision in 10 years at least.

Sorry, you may now return to Minnesota ramblings.

 

[Perfection]

My God, I really hope that gets straightened out. It's supposed to be public USE, period. Roads, courthouse maybe, etc. Worst Supreme Court decision in 10 years at least.

Well, there are some cases where I think it's appropriate to pull ED for private establishments. Lets say you want to raze 30 houses to put in a mall, so you try to buy out all the houses. What if 28 households agree, and you just can't get 2 households to go with? Should the multimillion dollar project be forced to not happen because of a few straglers?

Certainly ED has been abused here, but in other cases it can be quite beneficial.

 

[bhsup]

Should the multimillion dollar project be forced to not happen because of a few straglers?

Dang right it should be forced to not happen. It's those two hold-outs' property. You can go build your project somewhere else, and just on the off chance that you can't do that, then sorry but tough cookies.

 

[Perfection]

Dang right it should be forced to not happen. It's those two hold-outs' property. You can go build your project somewhere else, and just on the off chance that you can't do that, then sorry but tough cookies.

So then everyone loses out on having that big development because of a couple holdouts? Often these are actually beneifical to the community and provide important services.

Or what about a holdout who is just doing it so they'll offer him a large amount of money? Is that right?

 

[bhsup]

So then everyone loses out on having that big development because of a couple holdouts? Often these are actually beneifical to the community and provide important services.

It's the holdouts' properties, not everyone else's. That's it, period. Beneficial to the community is irrelevant.

Or what about a holdout who is just doing it so they'll offer him a large amount of money? Is that right?

Again, it's the holdout's property, so why shouldn't they hold out for as much as they can get or just flat out refuse to sell? The person wanting to buy it can either say yes and pay or walk away.

The NASCAS speedway in Kansas forcibly removed over 150 families who refused to sell and had to be taken to court, among which were retired folks wanting to spend the rest of their lives in the homes they had lived in for decades. I don't care if that speedway brings millions of dollars into the area, that was just inexcusable.

However, as I stated before, I do acknowledge the legitimacy of the government taking property for roads, government buildings that are necessary, etc. But they better have made sure they studied the issue and are building said road or building in the way which has the least impact on citizens.

 

[amadeus]

So then everyone loses out on having that big development because of a couple holdouts? Often these are actually beneifical to the community and provide important services.

I'd say that sounds ominously like centrally planned economics. I mean, two out of thirty may appear to be small enough group to dictate to, but how long is it before 20 of the thirty refuse, and the project still goes through?

Or what about a holdout who is just doing it so they'll offer him a large amount of money? Is that right?

That's supply and demand.

 

[Perfection]

It's the holdouts' properties, not everyone else's. That's it, period. Beneficial to the community is irrelevant.

Community benefit is the whole point of ED in the first place! How can you support use of ED for governmental purposes if the sole reason for it is to benefit the community? What other reason is there for government ED other then community benefit?

Again, it's the holdout's property, so why shouldn't they hold out for as much as they can get or just flat out refuse to sell? The person wanting to buy it can either say yes and pay or walk away.

That's a poor environment to do business.

The NASCAS speedway in Kansas forcibly removed over 150 families who refused to sell and had to be taken to court, among which were retired folks wanting to spend the rest of their lives in the homes they had lived in for decades. I don't care if that speedway brings millions of dollars into the area, that was just inexcusable.

Citing cases of abuse (assuming this is one) does not equte to a generalization. I can cite cases where many laws are abused, but should those laws be repealed? No, just better enforced and interpreted. Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.

However, as I stated before, I do acknowledge the legitimacy of the government taking property for roads, government buildings that are necessary, etc. But they better have made sure they studied the issue and are building said road or building in the way which has the least impact on citizens.

So, what if the devloper does the same? And studes the way that has the least negative impact?

 

[Perfection]

I'd say that sounds ominously like centrally planned economics. I mean, two out of thirty may appear to be small enough group to dictate to, but how long is it before 20 of the thirty refuse, and the project still goes through?

A fair point. A balance must be struck. However, I think we both can agree one the first case and not on the second.

That's supply and demand.

Yes it is. Point?

 

[bhsup]

Community benefit is the whole point of ED in the first place! How can you support use of ED for governmental purposes if the sole reason for it is to benefit the community? What other reason is there for government ED other then community benefit?

One's private property must never, ever be taken from someone just so it can be given to someone else because that other person may sink more cash into the local coffers. ED is only supposed to be used for public projects, period.

As I said, that recent Supreme Court ruling is so blatantly off base, given the clear language of the 5th Amendment.

...nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation. . It only mentions public use, it doesn't say it can be taken for private use that happens to benefit the community. Since it doesn't mention it, it's not allowed for the government to do it.

 

[GenMarshall]

Why not a a Count Dracula who has a bad Eastern European Accent like Count von Count to be governor .

 

[Perfection]

One's private property must never, ever be taken from someone just so it can be given to someone else because that other person may sink more cash into the local coffers. ED is only supposed to be used for public projects, period.

It's not just about cash to local coffers, it's about providing citizens jobs, improving the neighborhood, providing new services, adding community prestige, and multiple other benefits. And what's wrong with tax bases? The government needs to make money doesn't it?

As I said, that recent Supreme Court ruling is so blatantly off base, given the clear language of the 5th Amendment.

...nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation. . It only mentions public use, it doesn't say it can be taken for private use that happens to benefit the community. Since it doesn't mention it, it's not allowed for the government to do it.

It's public use not ownership. The public does use it by reaping whatever benefit it confers to the community.

 

[bhsup]

It's public use not ownership. The public does use it by reaping whatever benefit it confers to the community.

Um, sorry but that's a wrong interpretation of the Amendment. My interpretation is the correct one (why? because I say so. my opinions are always right).

EDIT: Er, I wasn't trying to be flippant there, so please don't take it that way. I'm pretty right/wrong, black/white on most things and I happen to very resolute with the opinions I do hold.